Let's Make Doomworld Responsive (Mobile Friendly)

[Dragonfly]

We're in the golden age of the smartphone. I think it's time we upgrade, and I am happy to put in the effort to get this site & it's forums in a mobile friendly state!

Looking at the statistics below, we can see that 2015 is the first year that the mobile device is the leader for the general consumption of internet, with 51% of all internet usage being done on a mobile device.



With the new Doom(4) around the corner, what better time to update the site than now?

Assuming nobody else wants to, I am happy to write a CSS stylesheet that makes use of media queries to help the website display without any need to pinch&zoom on mobile & tablet devices. Unfortunately the current HTML doesn't feature many ID & class attributes on the elements, which means it's very hard (if not impossible) to style the website correctly.

I am also interested to know, are the users of Doomworld interested in the forums being made mobile friendly? If you're not, why not?

To the admins of Doomworld, if you would like for this to be implemented I am happy to work alongside yourselves.

[LuciferSam86]

Interesting idea, since I visit this site on my smartphone, too, but I don't know if the site/forum framework permits it.

Dragonfly said:

<...>display without any need to pinch&zoom on mobile & tablet devices

But, please, DO NOT disable pinch&zoom, like some sites do on their mobile version. If an user want to pinch&zoom, the web designer must permit it.

[mrthejoshmon]

From what I have experienced, most of the site works correctly off of my terrible Android phone (Galaxy Ace), the only issue I have with it is having my buddy list filling up due to the horrors of touch screen control.

[Dragonfly]

merlin86 said:

But, please, DO NOT disable pinch&zoom, like some sites do on their mobile version. If an user want to pinch&zoom, the web designer must permit it.

Oh God no, I wouldn't disable the ability to zoom on a forum! Especially on a forum where imagery is as prevalent as it is here, after all the user is likely to desire a closer look at the screenshots.

mrthejoshmon said:

From what I have experienced, most of the site works correctly off of my terrible Android phone (Galaxy Ace), the only issue I have with it is having my buddy list filling up due to the horrors of touch screen control.

I personally am using a Samsung Galaxy S4 (Android) with the Chrome Browser and most of the site's text is miniature - I very much dislike needing to constantly zoom in and out to see what I am reading and navigate the site.

I feel the criteria for a 'mobile usable site' is one which can be browsed and navigated with only your thumb. The need to pinch / zoom instantly fails that criteria.

[Bucket]

With all due respect, take your web 3.0 bullshit elsewhere.

posted from my Android smartphone

[Arctangent]

Bucket said:

With all due respect, take your web 3.0 bullshit elsewhere.

posted from my Android smartphone

I'm not sure if posting a circa 8000 B.C. opinion from a smartphone really changes how outdated it is, to be honest.

[dew]

Bucket said:

With all due respect, take your web 3.0 bullshit elsewhere.

posted from my Android smartphone

Nice bedside manners. As much as I enjoy the oldschool simplicity when I'm browsing dwf on a computer, it really is unreadable, unnavigable and generally terrible on a phone. I'd really welcome a m.doomworld.com version, because it can only get better.

[Dragonfly]

I'm actually quite amazed anyone said no. The experience while browsing this site on a desktop would remain entirely unchanged.

dew said:

I'd really welcome a m.doomworld.com version, because it can only get better.

It wouldn't have an alternate domain, rather the webpage would simply adapt to the available space. If your browser window is 500 pixels wide, the page would be altered in such a way it's viewable at such a resolution. This way, the website would be usable regardless of what device it is viewed from, be it Monitor, Tablet, Smartphone etc

[chungy]

Dragonfly said:

If your browser window is 500 pixels wide, the page would be altered in such a way it's viewable at such a resolution.

Did you not learn from the 90s? Making assumptions based on pixel dimensions is always a terrible idea. My phone has more pixels in both directions than my desktop monitor. I sure as hell wouldn't want my phone stuck with a desktop version of a page, and my desktop with the mobile one. :P

(fwiw, phone = 2560x1440; desktop = 1920x1200)

[Clonehunter]

Dragonfly said:

I'm actually quite amazed anyone said no. The experience while browsing this site on a desktop would remain entirely unchanged.

Some people here are just that old.

I voted neutral because I don't care, but I would otherwise support it if it was passed. I studied some of this shit and have a good grasp on how to create mobile CSS docs, and I really don't see a downside to this.

[snapshot]

Yes, because browsing Doomworld on a tablett or any kind of Smartphones is a Real pain in the butt .

[Dragonfly]

chungy said:

Did you not learn from the 90s? Making assumptions based on pixel dimensions is always a terrible idea. My phone has more pixels in both directions than my desktop monitor. I sure as hell wouldn't want my phone stuck with a desktop version of a page, and my desktop with the mobile one. :P

(fwiw, phone = 2560x1440; desktop = 1920x1200)

That is what is known as a retina display and would have a pixel ratio applied to it for the sake of media queries. Visit this page on the device and tell me what it says.

http://joshuaosullivan.co.uk/misc/responsive/

Clonehunter said:

Some people here are just that old.

Heh.

Clonehunter said:

I really don't see a downside to this.

Precisely my point.

[Remilia Scarlet]

I don't think I've had an issue with mobile browsers here since I had my last pre-Android phone, and that would have been before the HTC Dream. Since then it's just gotten easier with larger screen sizes.

Everything looks correct and works fast on both my phone and tablet, too. But I also use Firefox on those.

If there does end up being a mobile site, I'd like to see an option to turn it off in my profile or something. I hate mobile websites.

[printz]

I voted yes. But only if it means increasing default text size and maybe optimizing other sizes for the small screen. Do NOT remove features and do NOT develop an app to replace the website. I'd go even further: do NOT make a separate website, just use the same one (doomworld.com). And for goodness' sake don't forget tablet users: the tablet screen is usually big enough to support the full desktop experience, unlike the phone's (but considering what I said earlier about removing features, "full" should be a subjective word by now!).

[scifista42]

printz said:

I'd go even further: do NOT make a separate website, just use the same one (doomworld.com).

But what if (for example) the user came to a conclusion that the mobile version is shit (didn't like it) and wanted to view the normal (non-mobile) version of the site? Wouldn't this design choice make it hard for him?

[DooMAD]

Dragonfly said:

I'm actually quite amazed anyone said no. The experience while browsing this site on a desktop would remain entirely unchanged.

Hope so. Another forum I use recently changed the software to be more mobile friendly and it's annoying as hell at the moment. Still hoping they fix several things to make it behave more like the old (better) one they had. I'd also lean towards the m.doomworld.com option just because of that experience. Developers always seem to work under the assumption that their new version is definitely going to be an improvement on the old one, but they're not always right, heh.

[Linguica]

As I have mentioned before, I intend to redesign the forums (and probably the whole site) using the Bootstrap framework so that it will be responsive to different screen sizes.

[RestlessRodent]

Ironically, a web page designed for 1992 displayed on a low resolution 320x200 desktop screen makes everything fit quite nicely and readable. However that same web page on smart phones just ends up having micro size text where it is required to zoom in just to see what is typed.

[Clonehunter]

Linguica said:

As I have mentioned before, I intend to redesign the forums (and probably the whole site) using the Bootstrap framework so that it will be responsive to different screen sizes.

But hey, now it sounds like someone wants to get recruited. "Intending" only goes so far.

[dio]

I come here on a cellphone a lot. Its never a bother. Does mobile count for tablets?

[Krispy]

That's a nice presentation you got there. I hear they've been looking for someone to promote to general manager. Keep it up and it just might be you!

[zZaRDoZz]

I voted no. Remember your first *just-touch-with-the-mouse- link*? Or how about that first *add-bar-follows-you-around-blocking-the-view* banner? A year of nearly solid android use and I still yearn for a decent web experience. Oh wait, forgot to mention, those accidental page clicks, if you have metered band-width, you pay for those now.

I can put up with the zooming if need be.

[Dragonfly]

GhostlyDeath said:

Ironically, a web page designed for 1992 displayed on a low resolution 320x200 desktop screen makes everything fit quite nicely and readable. However that same web page on smart phones just ends up having micro size text where it is required to zoom in just to see what is typed.

Below is a screenshot showing just how scrambled the fonts are when browsing these forums. You will see that most links are too small to be reliable without the use of pinch & zoom.

dio said:

I come here on a cellphone a lot. Its never a bother. Does mobile count for tablets?

Flipping around the way you worded it - Yes, tablets count as mobile. They are however less awkward to use than a mobile phone when on a desktop website.

Krispy said:

That's a nice presentation you got there. I hear they've been looking for someone to promote to general manager. Keep it up and it just might be you!

Heh.

printz said:

I voted yes. But only if it means increasing default text size and maybe optimizing other sizes for the small screen. Do NOT remove features and do NOT develop an app to replace the website. I'd go even further: do NOT make a separate website, just use the same one (doomworld.com). And for goodness' sake don't forget tablet users: the tablet screen is usually big enough to support the full desktop experience, unlike the phone's (but considering what I said earlier about removing features, "full" should be a subjective word by now!).

I am in complete agreement with your statements. Any loss of functionality would be unacceptable, especially so in a forum environment. I personally despise app-based website solutions over a responsive one, so I wouldn't have developed any kind of app, and I doubt anyone else would either.

Tablet users are very much part of the 'mobile web' and would not be forgotten. The idea of responsive websites IS NOT 'support mobile phones and tablets.', but rather 'be able to display your website on any screen size, big, small and anything in between. Naturally this covers tablets, those shiny new 'huge smartphones', 4K Televisions, etc etc.

scifista42 said:

But what if (for example) the user came to a conclusion that the mobile version is shit (didn't like it) and wanted to view the normal (non-mobile) version of the site? Wouldn't this design choice make it hard for him?

Add a toggle in the user CP that allows you to disable it. (On by default, logically.)
I imagine that it would be a simple solution --- if userMobile = yes; include responsive.css

yukib1t said:

I don't think I've had an issue with mobile browsers here since I had my last pre-Android phone, and that would have been before the HTC Dream. Since then it's just gotten easier with larger screen sizes.

Everything looks correct and works fast on both my phone and tablet, too. But I also use Firefox on those.

If there does end up being a mobile site, I'd like to see an option to turn it off in my profile or something. I hate mobile websites.

I agree with the option to disable the optimisations. I think I'll have to take a look at how the site displays on firefox for android, at least for the time being.

I'm not a huge fan of mobile websites, however, I am far more fond of a mobile website than a desktop website when browsing on a mobile phone.

DooMAD said:

Hope so. Another forum I use recently changed the software to be more mobile friendly and it's annoying as hell at the moment. Still hoping they fix several things to make it behave more like the old (better) one they had. I'd also lean towards the m.doomworld.com option just because of that experience. Developers always seem to work under the assumption that their new version is definitely going to be an improvement on the old one, but they're not always right, heh.

That's a shame about the forum you visit. Again, I think based on other people's comments it would be 'togglable' on/off with a setting in the user control panel.

zZaRDoZz said:

I voted no. Remember your first *just-touch-with-the-mouse- link*? Or how about that first *add-bar-follows-you-around-blocking-the-view* banner? A year of nearly solid android use and I still yearn for a decent web experience. Oh wait, forgot to mention, those accidental page clicks, if you have metered band-width, you pay for those now.

I can put up with the zooming if need be.

If you yearn for a decent experience, wouldn't you logically vote yes? It can only be an improvement over what it currently is.

Linguica said:

As I have mentioned before, I intend to redesign the forums (and probably the whole site) using the Bootstrap framework so that it will be responsive to different screen sizes.

This is more like it! If you're looking for someone to help out on the project Linguica, I am willing to contribute.

Clonehunter said:

But hey, now it sounds like someone wants to get recruited. "Intending" only goes so far.

I am indeed willing to put my fair share into the work.

[scifista42]

Dragonfly said:

Add a toggle in the user CP that allows you to disable it. (On by default, logically.)
I imagine that it would be a simple solution --- if userMobile = yes; include responsive.css

What if the interface will be so broken on the user's device that he will have serious trouble accessing his CP (if it's what I think it is) at all? Typing a different url would be a simpler solution for him. I'm afraid of this auto-change-behavior thing on one url.

[DoomUK]

Doomworld is perfectly readable on my Galaxy S6, therefore I'm not pining for a mobile site. But I'm cool with the idea if others would benefit from it. As yukib1t said, just make it optional and everyone will be happy.

[Dragonfly]

scifista42 said:

What if the interface will be so broken on the user's device that he will have serious trouble accessing his CP (if it's what I think it is) at all? Typing a different url would be a simpler solution for him. I'm afraid of this auto-change-behavior thing on one url.

I'm unsure if you intend to imply that it won't be done properly, but that's how it seems. The interface would work fine and as such access to the User's control panel would remain. The idea behind this suggestion is to make the page work better than it does now. Not to change and/or ruin anything.

DoomUK said:

Doomworld is perfectly readable on my Galaxy S6, therefore I'm not pining for a mobile site. But I'm cool with the idea if others would benefit from it. As yukib1t said, just make it optional and everyone will be happy.

That's fortunate. How is the S6 by the way? I was considering investing in it in the new year.

[scifista42]

Dragonfly said:

I'm unsure if you intend to imply that it won't be done properly, but that's how it seems. The interface would work fine and as such access to the User's control panel would remain. The idea behind this suggestion is to make the page work better than it does now. Not to change and/or ruin anything.

You missed the point of my words "on the user's device". I imply that his device would be to blame, functioning somehow differently than the mobile site's designer (you?) assumed, or just being incompatible.

[TimeOfDeath]

Some of the recent changes to the forum were actually a downgrade for the negligible amount of people who browse with javascript/images/flash disabled to conserve data use. I don't like change and I've never had a phone, so I voted No.

[Dragonfly]

scifista42 said:

You missed the point of my words "on the user's device". I imply that his device would be to blame, functioning somehow differently than the mobile site's designer (you?) assumed, or just being incompatible.

Okay, I see what you mean by that. Although I've not personally experienced anything of the sort myself. Have you?

TimeOfDeath said:

Some of the recent changes to the forum were actually a downgrade for the negligible amount of people who browse with javascript/images/flash disabled to conserve data use. I don't like change and I've never had a phone, so I voted No.

Using the correct methods, no javascript would be used, and most likely only a few KB of data would be loaded and then cached. People who'd go to the lengths of disabling javascript to save bandwidth would undoubtedly leave the cache uncleared to further save more data.

Some statistics:


Sourced from https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/



Sourced from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled

[SYS]

Works fine on my chinese tablet & Xperia Z1 if I really, really, need to browse using them for whatever reason. You know, vs the machine that you will inevitably use to play Doom & Pwads on.
EDIT: It's the one thing your shiny statistics overlook.